ML18025A075

Susquehanna Units 1 and 2 - in the Matter of the Application for an Operating License for the Susquehanna Nuclear Generating Station by Pp&L - Amended Petition for Leave to Intervene

ML18025A075
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	01/17/1979
From:	Susquehanna Environmental Advocates
To:	NRC/SECY
References
Download: ML18025A075 (17)

Text

~/~7/PfINTHEMATTEROF:gygCLEARREGULATORY (X&MSSION THEAPPLICATION FORANOPERAQZHG gQy~QLICENSEFORTHESUSQUEHANNA

<IZAAK~GENERATING STATIONBYTHE+O~~~i"Q.PENNSYLVANIA PCNERANDLIGHTCORPORATION APPLICATION N...,.~'-"ofl978AMENDEDPETITIONFORLEAVETOIÃZEHVENE We,thefollowing individuals, asindividual personsandasrepresentatives andmembersofaprivate,non-profit unincorporated organization knownasSUSQUEHANNA ENVIBCRKNTAL ADVOCATES, hereinafter referredtoasSEA,herebysuhnitandfileourAmendedPetitionforLeavetoIntervene intheabove-captioned matter.Ourcon-tentionsarespecified below.Itisourpositionthatsaidcontentions meettherequirements oftheNuclear~atoryCammission forspecificity andthattheissuescontained andrepresented bysaidcontentions shouldberaisedandfullydiscussed atthepublichearingsontheabove-captioned matter.I.InterestofthePetitioners AsstatedinourPetitionforLeavetoIntervene andRequestforHearing,wehaveadefinitesubstantial interestinthismatter.Petitioners liveinandaroundWilkes-Barre, LuzerneCounty,Pennsylvania.

Petitioners aregainfully employedinvariousoccupations.

Petitioners traveltoandfrcmtheWilkes-Barre area,scme-timestraveling incloseproximity totheproposedplant.Petitioners usepublicparksforrecreational activities anduseotherareasforrecreational activities, scmeofwhichareincloseproximity totheproposedplant.Petitioners drinkwaterframreservoirs whichisinturnderivedfrcmtheareawatershedaxneofwhichisincloseproximity totheproposedplant.Petitioners consumefood;saneofwhichisgrowninareasneartheproposedplant.SaneofthePetitioners ownrealpropertyintheWilkes-Barre area.Petitioners financial, propertyandhealthinterestwouldbeaffectedbytheoperation oftheproposedplantandthecertainpossibleconsequences ofsaidoperation.

TRANSPORTATICN OFRADIOACTIVE NATERIAIS l.Table3.8-1ofChapter3Volumn2oftheERmentionsnothingconcerning theexacttransportation routestobeusedinthetransportation ofradioactive materials.

Thetableabove-nentioned andothersectionsofthereportdonotmentionwhatsafeguards arebeingimplemented andwhetherthegovernment orprivateishandlingthedesignandimplementation ofthesesafeguards.

Thereport.alsodoesnotstatewhetherthepublic,theutility,orthegovernment isexpectedtopaytheadditional costsincurredthroughthespecialsafeguards andextratransportation necessary becauseofthisuniqueformofgenerating energy.Thus,it.isourcontention thatuntilthesequestions areansweredthereportsbyPP6Lareinadequate.

Thereportdoesnotd.iscussevenpossibleoff-sitelocations fordisposalorstorageoflow-level radioactive waste.Purthermore, thereportignoreswhowillberesponsible formaintenance andsecurityofsuchsites,wheresuchsiteswillbelocated,whowillmonitorsuchsitesforpossibleenvironmental contamination andhowlongsuchsitesmustbemaintained.

Thus,paragraph twoofouroriginalpetitionshouldbeadmittedasacontention.

DEG2%ISSI(XVENG Theplansofthecompanyarefordecamnissioning thefacilityaredeficient andinadecpate inthefollowing respects:

1)Themethodtobeusedisnotspecified.

2)Thestatement thattheplantwillhavethesamepotential forbeneficial usesafterdecaanissioning exceptforlandrightaroundthereactorsiteisincorrect.

Thepropertyvaluewillbemuchlower.3)Thecostestimates listedarederivedfromanindustry-sponsored study.Thisindustry-sponsored studyisobviously biasedandthecostestimates arefarbelowwhattheactualcostofdecamnissioning willbe.TheBoardshouldrequirethecompanytostatethespecificmethodthatwillbeusedfordeccxrmissioning basedonthecurrentleveloftechnology andtherealistic estimateofitscost.4)Theplanstatesthat"anappropriate andcontinuous surveillance program"willbeinstituted.

Therearenospecifics offeredastowhatthisprogramwillconsistof.5)Section5.8.1-3entitledprcaptrennvalanddismantling, itisinrealitynotanalternative becauseitisnotfeasibletoprcmptlyremoveanddismantle anuclearreactorinturnbecauseofthehighlevelsofradiation present.6)Thethenecessary towait.fordismantling hasnotbeenspecified.

7)Thestatement thatitis"generally agreedthatthedecaxnnissioning ofalargenuclearpowerfacilityproposednonewoccupational orenvironmental hazards"iserroneous.

Thiswouldnotbeagreedtobytheworkerswhohavetodismantle theplant.Infact,thereareseriousradiation hazards.8)Thesectionofthereportstatesthattheindustrystudywasbasedonasimilarreactor.Itdoesnotstatewhichreactorarifitwasbuiltbythesameccxapany, orifitwassoldbythesarreccmpany.Thisinformation shouldbefurbished.

Thus,wethinkthatParagraph 3ofouroriginalpetitionasamendedshouldbeadmittedasacontention.

HUFiBERPOiiRi%eithertheERnortheFSARdiscusses theadecuacyofthefuelsupplyovertheprojected lifeotheplant.Thepiceofuraniumfuelhasrisenapproximately 4OC/ointhelastsizyears.Iiuchofoururaniummustbeimported.

)Jethinkthattheadeauacyofthesupply,thesourceofthesupply(companyandcountry),

thecurrentpriceoffuelandtheprojected price,andtheezistingcontracts foruraniumfuelshouldbedisclosed anddiscussed.

Thus,paragraph fourofouroriginalpetitionshouldbeadmittedasacontention.

ttEXPOSUREOFURANIUMMINERSANDTHEPUBLZCTORADIATION-NUMBERSFIVEANDSIXEnvironmental impactsassetforthintable5.9-1entitled"SumeryofEnvironmental Considerations fortheUraniumFuelCycleoftheEnvironmental Reportincludeonlythnotation"Occupational Exposure(person-rem) 226fromReprocessing WasteManagement".

Thus,theenvironmental reportignoresparagraph 5ofouroriginalpetition.

Itiswellknownthaturaniumminersareexposedtoradiation anddogetcancerfrcmsaidoccupational exposure.

Wewanttoknowthenumberofsuchminers,theextentoftheexposureandtheprojected numberofcancerandpremature deathstobecausedasaresultofthenooninguraniumforuseinfabricating thefuelsupplyfortheseproposedunits.Themungisdefinitely partofthefuelcycle.Thereisalogicalandunavoidable connection causeandeffectrelationship betweentheoperation oftheplantandtheminingofuranium.Thus,itisourcontention thatthisisarelevantquestionandshouldbeexploredinthehearings.

Thestatements intheaboveparagraphs relatingtoexposureofminersare~lyapplicable totheexposureofminersandgeneralpublicfromradiation frommilltailings.

Thusparagraph 6ofouroriginalpetitionshouldalsobeadmittedasacontention.

EXPOSUREOFWORKERSTORADIATICN 7.Theenvironmental reportandfinalsafetyanalysisreportareinadequate inthattheydonotdetailthenunberofcancerandpremature deathstobecausedbyexposureofmaintenance workerstoradiation.

ThereportsbyPP6LdostatethattherewillbeexposureofworkerswhoareworkingonUnit2ofthestationwhileUnit1isinoperation.

Thereportsareinadequate inthattheyfailtostatewhythisexposureisnecessary atall.NecontendthatUnit1shouldnotbeginoperation untilconstruction iscompleted onUnit2.

HiViB~~REIGHTThereportdoesnotelaborate one'herthetrainingortheadecuacyofsafeguards toprotectlocalemergency unitswh'chmayberequiredtoparticipate inemergency evacuation procedures orwhichmayoerequiredtodealwithon-sitesituations.

Thereportdoesnotstatewhetherthepublicortheutilitywillprovidethetraininginprotection andprocedure requiredbylocalemergency unitstocoordinate asafe,systematic evacuation.

Thus,paragraph eightofouroriginalpetitionshouldbeadmittedasacontention.

TheSumnaxyofEnvironrrental Considerations fortheUraniumFuelCycleoftheERdoesmentionoccupational exposurefrcmreprocessing.

However,itdoesnotstatehowmanyworkersaretobeaffected, theextentofexposureperworker,andthen~of'cancerandpremature deathstobecaused.Wethinkthattheenvironmental reportisinadequate anditdoesnotdetailtheobviously humancostsoftheoperation oftheplant.Thus,wethinkthatnumber9inouroriginalpetitionshouldbeadmittedasacontention.

NUMBERTENAseriousaccidentattheplantsiteinvolving amajorreleaseofradiation andtheconsequences ofthisarenotevendiscussed intheERortheFSARofPP6L.Studiesshowingthat.theriskissosmallthatthisdoesnot.evenneedtobediscussed areirrelevant.

Thesestudieshavebeeninlargepartdiscredited andregardless oftheextentoftherisktheextentofthepossibledamagedemandsdiscussion ofthispossibility.

Wewanttoknowtheconsequences ofsuchanaccidentintermsofthehealth,welfareandemployment ofpeopleofthePpaningValleyArea.Wewanttoknowwhowillbearthecostsofinjuriesanddamagestohealth,propertyandlibertyintheeventofamajoraccidentwhichcouldcontaminate theentireRycmingValleyrendering itunfitforuseandcausinganindeteaninate numberofcancerandpremature deaths.Thus,wethinkthatparagraph 10inouroriginalpetitionshouldbeadmittedasacontention.

-ASSURANCE OFEFFECTIVENESS OFSAFETYSYSTENS(INCLUDING E.C.C.S.)Inlight.ofrecentE.C.C.S.Testing,it.isstilluncertain astowhethertheback-upsystancanperformsatisfactorally undertheanredynamicconditions foundinthenuclearfacilityinBerwick.Itshouldalsobestressedthatasingletestingshouldnotprovethereliability ofanysystem,letaloneonesocrucialastheE.C.C.S.

SECURITYPLANS-NUMBERS13and14According toPennsylvania PowerandLightDomznents theSecurityPlanfortheSSEShasbeensubmitted asaseparatedocumentwithheldframpublicdisclosure pursuanttoFederalRegulations.

However,itisourcontention thatwehavearighttoknowandthepublichasarighttoknowthefollowing factsconcerning thesecurityarrangements:

1.Howmanypeoplewillbehiredtoworkonthesecurityforceattheplant?2.Howwillsaidsecurityforcebearmed?3.Thecostsofsaidsecurityforce?4.Whowillbearthecostsofsaidsecurityforce-thestockholders ortheratepayers?5.Whatkindofplanshavebeenmadeforsecurityclearance ofworkerstobehiredtobepartofthesecurityforce,howmuchtheseinvestigations andprocedures willcost,andwhowillbearthecost?

NUMBERFIPZZENTheenvironmental reportfiledbythecompanyistotallyinadequate inexploring thealternatives.

Environmental reportsimplyadoptsthealternatives exploredin1972.Toassumethatthesituation hasnotchangedsince1972,isridiculous.

Thecurrentenvironrrental reportstatesthattherearebasically onlytwo(2)alternatives, theoperation oftheplantor'etting theplantstandunused.Thisassertion onlyreflectsupontheshort-sightedness ofthemrpany.Therearemorethantwoalternatives.

Amongthanaretheuseoftheseriousenergyconservation program,toreducedenandforelectricity,.

Aseriousprogramwouldeliminate theneedfortheplantaltogether andwouldsavetheconsumers obviously agreatdealofmoney.Thereisalsothealternative ofutilitydeveloping alternating energysourcesincluding solarwindandhydor-power.

Duringthepastfiveyearstheseenergysourceshavebeccxneamuchmorewell-known.

However,thetechnology fortheirusehasbeeninexistence manyyearsbeforethis.Theassumption bythecompanythatelectricusewillgrowfvmanannualrateof4.7%fram1975to1990isprobablyerroneous, absentofseriousconservation ofenergyeffort.Ifthereweresuchaneffort,whichwecontendthecampanyshouldtaketheinitiative insupporting theelectricusegrowtAforecastwouldbevastlyoverstated.

Wethinkthatwhateverportionofthiselectricusegrm~forecastisexpectedtobeusedforelectricspaceheatingshouldbedisregarded bytheBoard.Thisisawastefulandinefficient waytouseelectricity.

Alternative sourcescouldbeused.The1972reportdiscusses neitherenergyconservation oralternative energysourcesasalternatives totheproposedplant.Thus,forthesereasonsaloneit,isgrosslydeficient.

Italsoassumesa70percentcapacityfactorforthenuclearplantwhenthenationalexperience hasbeenthatthenuclearplantshavehadalessthan60percentcapacityfactorduetofrequentshut-downs andbreak-dawns.

Italso II~oeassumesmuchlowerpriceforuraniumfuelthanisncaainexistence.

Evengiventhesefactors,thecostofthenuclearplantisonlyslightlylowerthanthecostofcoalplants.Wethinkthatthesealtexnatives shouldbere-examined.

Thus,paragraph 15ofouroriginalpetitionasamendedshouldbeadmittedasacontention.

CONCUJSION Theissuanceofanoperating licensetotheproposedfacilitymaybeinimicaltotheccmnondefense,security, health,safety,welfare,andlibertyofthepublicintheWilkes-Barre andWyomingValleyarea.Theapplication forsaidoperating licenseshouldbesubjected totheclosestpossiblescrutiny.

Theapplication shouldbesubjected tosuchscrutiny, especially inlightoftheForwardtotheEnvironmental ReportwrittenbythePennsylvania PowerandLightinAprilof1978.TheForwardstatesasfollows:"...weasenergyproviders mustcontinuetobeforwardthinkingandever-aware ofsocialandenvironmental considerations whichmustmeshwithplansforenergysupplies.

Inshort,wehavebecame,bynecessity, moreaptplannersweighingcarefully ouroptionsandimpactsonspaceship Earth."The19thCenturymrdsofNietzsche haveasmuchmeaningtodayforcorporate andsocialdecisions asforindividual actions.'Manshapeshisownfuture,andthat,aswellasbywhathedcesasbywhathefailstodo.'Thisenvironmental reportforourSusgueharum SteamElectricStationrecordsthestepswearetakingsothatwewillnotfailtoservefuturegenerations.

"ThisForwardtotheEnvironmental Reportdemonstrates incredible ignorance andarrogance onthepartofthePennsylvania PowerandLightCcxqpany.

Thecon@anyattemptstoportraythemselves asenlightened socialplannersandcarefulstewardsandcaretakers oftheEarth'senvironment andresources.

Therealityofthesituation isthatthePennsylvania PowerandLightCanpany,alongwithscmeotherutilityccmpanies, nuclearreactorbuilders, banksandfinancial institutions, isthroughtheconstruction oftheproposedoperation ofthisplantcontributing tocanceramonguraniumminers,millers,andworkersattheplant,seriousadverseenvironmental consecpences, andincreased ratesfortheconsumer.

Theplantwillbe adisasterforconsumers aswellasfortheenvironment.

Thereareprovenalterna-tivestonuclearpcmerwhicharesafer,cleaner,andcheaper.Itisourcontenfionthatweshouldusethesealternatives andthattheapplication foranoperating licensebythePennsylvania PowerandLightCompanyfortheSusquehanna SteamElectricStationshouldbedenied.

INTHEMATEROF:THEAPPLICATION FORANOPERATING LICENSEFORTHESUSQUEHANNA NUCUWRGENERATING STATICNBYTHEPENNSYLVANIA PCNERANDLI(RTCORPORATION NUCLEARREGULATORY CGNKESSION APPLICATION NO.of1978SUPPLEMENTAL PEZITIONFORATZORNEYS FEES,COSTSOFEXPERTWIK5ESSES ANDNISCELLANFGUS COSTSl.Aspartofouroriginalpetitionwesubmitted asupplemental petitionrequesting thatSEAbeawardedcostsofattorneys fees,expertwitnesses, andmiscellaneous costs.Wefurtherstatedthereasonsforoursupplemental petition.

2.Wehavereceivednorulingonthispetitionatthistine.Thelackoffundshasbeenaseriousobstacletoourpreparation ofananendedpetition.

Wearepeoplewhohavefull-time jobsandwedonothavefull-time todevotetothisresearch, unliketheemployees ofPPaLandtheirattorneys.

3.Weagainrequestthatanorderbeentereddirecting pa~tofthesecostsbytheNuclearRegulatory Caamission.

~O~<g~c.o+gl~C+gx~/

INTHEMATTEROF:THEAPPLICATION FORANOPERATING LICENSEFORTHESUSQUEHKWA NUCLEARGENERATING STATIONBYTHEPENNSYLVANIA PCNERANDLIGHTCORPORATION APPLICATION NO.of1978NUCLEIREGULATORY CCÃGSSION AFFIDAVIT We,theurdersigned, Petitioners intheabove-captioned matter,~g-d~s~,affirmthatallstatenents confirmed intheamndedPetitionandtheSupplemental Petitionaretrueandaccuratetothebestofourkncvledae, information andbelief.d'g